> I tend to agree with Steven's and Olof's comments in this thread. As the> node names generally don't have much meaning, I don't think we should> start now. We've already got multiple styles of bindings and I don't> think we need more.

Well, if we're going to go with an existing idiom the normal thing wouldbe an ordered array which is absolutely abysmal from a usabilitystandpoint. Compatible properties don't work as the whole reason wehave an issue here is that people want to have a single noderepresenting a group of regulators - for regulators which we can add acompatible property to we're already doing that and have no issue.

What device tree seems to need rather badly is a way of representingkey/value pairs - aside from the legacy bindings that seems to be themajor source of pain when trying to contort things into DT.

Using the "regulator" string that we have to put in the binding (whichis currently totally meaningless) does seem like a good way forwardhere.[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]